SZQDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 817

SZQDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 817

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had already been removed from Australia, so an appeal concerning whether an injunction should have issued to prevent deportation was pointless and had no prospects; Mr Satchithanantham was not permitted to appear because he was not a lawyer and had no standing as a McKenzie friend in the applicant's absence; costs were fixed at $3,000 under O 62 r 4(2)(c).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Immigration Application for Leave to Appeal an Interlocutory Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Federal Magistrate's Refusal of an Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Deportation
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs; costs payable by the Applicant to the First Respondent fixed at $3,000.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'deportation' 'non Lawyer Appearance' 'mc Kenzie Friend' 'gross Sum Costs Order']
['immigration' 'federal Court Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'deportation' 'non Lawyer Appearance' 'mc Kenzie Friend' 'gross Sum Costs Order']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Immigration Application for Leave to Appeal an Interlocutory Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Federal Magistrate's Refusal of an Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Deportation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the refusal of an interlocutory injunction restraining the applicant's deportation after the applicant had already been removed from Australia." 'Whether Mr Satchithanantham, a non-lawyer, should be permitted to appear for the applicant or as a McKenzie friend.' "Whether the First Respondent's costs should be fixed as a gross sum under O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had already been removed from Australia, so an appeal concerning whether an injunction should have issued to prevent deportation was pointless and had no prospects; Mr Satchithanantham was not permitted to appear because he was not a lawyer and had no standing as a McKenzie friend in the applicant's absence; costs were fixed at $3,000 under O 62 r 4(2)(c).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs; costs payable by the Applicant to the First Respondent fixed at $3,000.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.' 'Pursuant to Order 62 rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules the costs which are to be paid by the Applicant to the First Respondent in respect of these proceedings, including all costs orders, be fixed at $3000.']